Subject: [PWE3] VCCV draft

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:55:36 -0700

Hi folks,

We now have a new version of the draft written by Nick which was well
supported in the WG meeting.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delregno-pwe3-vccv-mandatory-features-01

I was wondering if this should be a Standards Track, Informational or
BCP. Opinions are welcome.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: "Shahram Davari" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:23:23 -0700

Hi Wishwas,

BCP seems to fit this draft. 

Also there is some ambiguity in the VCCV RFC that can be addressed in this draft. When two routers agree on a CC type (Say Type 1) during signaling, what should happen if for example one of them start sending a different CC Type (say CC Type 2)? Should it be accepted or dropped?

Thanks,
Shahram

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Vishwas Manral
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PWE3] VCCV draft

Hi folks,

Thanks,
Vishwas
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:44:41 -0700

Hi Shahram,

The RFC states that:

Once a specific CC Type has been chosen (i.e., it matches both the
transmitted and received VCCV CC capability), transmitted and replied
to, this CC Type MUST be the only one used until such time as the
pseudowire is re-signaled.

It seems to mean to me that the unknown CC type packet is counted and
dropped. We can probably clarify this in the next version of the
draft.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:51:35 -0400

Only one type (valid according to the rules in the RFC) is used after
its sent, and the type should not change thereafter until the PW goes down.
>From an operational point of view, this is appreciated as it simplifies
trouble-shooting.

    --Tom

On 4/29/10 1:23 PM, "Shahram Davari" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Also there is some ambiguity in the VCCV RFC that can be addressed in this
> draft. When two routers agree on a CC type (Say Type 1) during signaling, what
> should happen if for example one of them start sending a different CC Type
> (say CC Type 2)? Should it be accepted or dropped?
> 
> Thanks,
> Shahram
>

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:00:21 -0500

Vishwas,

The agreement in the room was that this draft should be a BCP.  If
anyone feels it should be standards-track, please speak up and we can
discuss it.

Also, Tom and Nick volunteered to conduct an implementation survey to
make sure that the draft didn't mandate features that haven't been
implemented and tested in the field. So let's wait for those results
before getting ahead of ourselves on the draft.

Thanks,
Andy

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:02:36 -0700

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the directions you have given. The only reason I talked
about Standards-track is because the gap in the VCCV RFC was that did
not specify the MUST/ SHOULD's etc with respect to a few requirements.

If you look up the draft it has a bunch of MUST/ SHOULD which I guess
we may not be able to put in a BCP closer to a Standards Track RFC.

Can you explain your views on this?

Thanks,
Vishwas